Subject: PGE Sale - Federal Regulatory Update
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:50:00 -0700 (PDT)

Not much has happened with the federal filings since we submitted them (SEC 
application was filed on February 4, FERC application was filed on March 3).  
Ann has been keeping everyone updated on the DOJ review of the HSR filing.  

With regard to the FERC filing, FERC separated the section 203 merger 
application from the section 205 joint open access tariff filing.   
Interventions and protests to the joint transmission tariff (which will be 
used by the merged companies once the merger occurs), were due to be filed at 
the end of March.  Interventions and protests to the section 203 application 
are due May 3.  

One party asked FERC to extend the deadline for interventions and protests on 
the tariff to be extended to May 3, and FERC granted that request.  However, 
several parties filed interventions before FERC granted the extension, so 
some comments have been filed.  The only significant substantive comment came 
from the Public Utility Commission of Nevada (PUCN).  PUCN opposes the 
merging parties' license plate rate proposal and instead favors a rolled-in 
rate structure (where the rates of the three individual systems -- Nevada 
Power, Sierra Pacific, and Portland General) are averaged together so that 
transmission customers on any of the three systems would pay the same 
transmission rate, regardless of which system they use.  

We have some answers to this protest.  First, one of FERC's main concerns 
with regard to transmission rates is the elimination of pancaked rates 
(paying multiple transmission rates for moving over multiple systems).  The 
joint open access tariff eliminates pancaking and uses instead a license 
plate approach (pay the rate of the system where the power is being delivered 
and have transmission access over all three systems for that one rate).  
Second, if the rates are averaged together, rate payers in the low cost 
region will pay a higher transmission rate.  Third, depending on the RTO 
configuration, PGE could be in a separate RTO from Sierra and Nevada, so 
different rates, at least for PGE, would be warranted.  

We plan on filing an answer to the PUCN protest at the same time we file an 
answer to the other protests and comments that will be filed on May 3.   FERC 
does not typically allow answers to protests, so we did not want to submit 
multiple answers to the various pleadings.  We expect the majority of 
protests to be filed in the section 203 merger application docket.  Once we 
see the extent of the protests, we will have a better idea of whether FERC 
should be able to issue an order on the merger by the end of July (before 
they leave for August recess).

The SEC proceeding has been quiet.  There are four major mergers ahead of our 
application (AEP/CSW, Energy East, NSP/New Century, ComEd/PECO), so we do not 
expect the SEC to focus on our filing until they are closer to ruling on 
these other mergers.  

We will keep you posted on any significant events on the federal side.  In 
the meantime, please call or email me if you have any questions.

Sarah